Paging Jeff Sessions! Legal experts agree that Hillary and her campaign broke the law during the 2016 election, not Team Trump — PART I

Thursday, January 11, 2018 by

Supporters of President Donald J. Trump and his “make America great again” agenda chafe daily at the realization that their candidate and officials with his campaign are under special investigation by a Deep State operative named Robert Mueller.

That’s because they know it’s not Team Trump who ought to be under a legal microscope and in jeopardy of losing their freedom, it’s Hillary Clinton and her campaign.

And the thing is, legal experts agree with them.

The main piece of evidence indicating that this is a Hillary problem and not a Trump problem is the notorious “Trump dossier.”

In July 2017, Politico surveyed legal experts to get their opinion on what “collusion” is and whether or not it’s actually against the law. The article was published as special counsel Mueller was ramping up his probe into whether or not the Trump campaign “colluded” with Russia to “steal the election” from Hillary.

Here’s some of what the experts had to say:

— Paul Rosenzweig, a former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and founder of Red Branch Consulting: He says, first of all, the term “collusion” is a misnomer primarily because it “is not a federal crime” with the exception of anti-trust law. He added: “But that doesn’t mean that the alleged cooperation between the Trump campaign and Russia is of no criminal interest. To the contrary, if true, it may have violated any number of criminal prohibitions.”

Further, he states: “For example, if Donald Trump Jr. sought ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton from the Russians, he might be charged with conspiring to violate the election laws of the United States, which prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any ‘thing of value’ to an electoral campaign. The opposition dirt is at least plausibly a thing of value.”

Question: Doesn’t this fit the exact description of the infamous “Trump dossier” the Clinton campaign bought and paid for? This “thing of value” was “dirt” the Clinton campaign got from Russian government sources, according to former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled it. For that matter, Steele is a foreign national as well. (Related: Key McCAIN surrogate who handled bogus TRUMP dossier talking to House INTEL panel.)

— Asha Rangappa, an associate dean at Yale Law School and a former special agent in the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI: Rangappa also agrees the term collusion is inappropriate.

She notes: “On the criminal side, the word that would best describe an agreement between the Trump campaign and Russia to commit any number of crimes (say, election fraud) would be ‘conspiracy’—something that the recent release of Donald Trump Jr.’s email chain might support.”

Question: If the Clinton campaign and the candidate herself didn’t ‘conspire’ with Russians to commit election fraud, what is what they did called? There was a conspiracy to dig up opposition research using foreign nationals including Russians in a bid to help Hillary get elected. That’s as plain as day.

She also said that “we have some clues that Russia may have been successful, such as Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn officially registering as foreign agents under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, or reports of a FISA order against Carter Page, which could only be obtained by showing a court that he was ‘knowingly engaged in foreign intelligence activities’ on behalf of a foreign power.”

Questions: Was the [bogus] Trump dossier used by the FBI to obtain the FISA court warrant? Was it used as justification for the FISA court warrant without first being substantiated? In other words, did the FBI agent or Justice Department official(s) who obtained the warrant use the dossier (which was produced by, and obtained from, foreign nationals) as proof that members of Trump’s campaign ‘knowingly engaged in foreign intelligence activities’ on behalf of a foreign power?

Republicans don’t think so, and they claim to have evidence proving as much.

This is a developing story; there is much more to come.

Read more of J.D. Heyes’ work at The National Sentinel.

Sources include: 

Politico.com

TheNationalSentinel.com

Comments

comments powered by Disqus